Defendants’ prohibition of any in person church services, in the name of fighting Covid-19, is not generally applicable. There are numerous exceptions to the March 19, 2020 Order, such as an exception for factories, or attending establishments like shopping malls, where far more people come into closer contact with less oversight.The suit also challenges the governor's travel ban. WTVQ News reports on the lawsuit. A different Kentucky federal district court has refused to restrain enforcement of the ban on mass gatherings. (See prior posting.)
Objective coverage of church-state and religious liberty developments, with extensive links to primary sources.
Thursday, April 23, 2020
Another Suit Challenges Kentucky Ban On In-Person Church Services
A class-action lawsuit was filed last week in a Kentucky federal district court by three individuals who attended in-person Easter Sunday services at Maryville Baptist Church in Hillview, Kentucky. The in-person services violated Governor Andy Beshear's COVID-19 ban on mass gatherings. State troopers placed notices on all cars in the church parking lot imposing a 14-day quarantine on those associated with the vehicle attending the service and others in their household. The complaint (full text) in Roberts v. Neace, (ED KY, filed 4/14/2020) alleges a violation of plaintiffs' free exercise rights, alleging in part:
Labels:
COVID-19,
Free exercise,
Kentucky
Wednesday, April 22, 2020
Israeli Court Awards Damages To LGBT Group that Was Refused Service
In a case reminiscent of many pending in the United States, a Magistrate's Court in the Israeli city of Beersheba has awarded damages equivalent to $14,000 plus attorneys' fees in a suit against Rainbow Color, a shop that refused to print posters for a gay rights organization at Ben Gurion University. Times of Israel yesterday reported in part:
“We do not deal with abomination materials. We are Jews!” the shop had said in response to the chapter’s request for an estimate on the posters.
Aguda argued that Rainbow Color had violated the Prohibition of Discrimination in Products, Services and Entry into Places of Entertainment and Public Places Law Act passed by the Knesset in 2000.
Rainbow Color claimed that its owners, who are religious, are barred from providing assistance to offenders of religious law. In its defense, the owners added the rulings of two Orthodox rabbis who wrote that according to Jewish law the publication of such posters is prohibited.However the judge ruled:
When their beliefs conflict with a necessity of providing service to all in a public space, the last value holds superior.
Labels:
Israel,
LGBT rights,
Public accommodation law
Navy Chaplains Given One More Chance To Refile Discrimination Claims
Arnold v. Secretary of the Navy, (D DC, April 21, 2020) is the latest installment in long-running litigation against the U.S. Navy by a group of non-liturgical Protestant chaplains who claim that the Navy discriminated against them. In a 2018 opinion (which is currently on appeal to the D.C. Circuit), the chaplains' broad challenges to Navy chaplain selection board policies and procedures were rejected, but the court allowed plaintiffs to file a new complaints-- which are at issue here-- claiming discrete instances of individual discrimination, retaliation and constructive discharge. Many of these claims were dismissed under the doctrine of res judicata. The court reluctantly concluded that plaintiffs, with limitations, can file new complaints raising those individual claims. The court said in part:
As demonstrated by this very case, plaintiffs and their counsel persist in filing repetitive and duplicative complaints despite having received lengthy decisions outlining precisely why their systemic challenges fail....
Based on plaintiffs’ actions thus far and their insistence that repetitious filings and forum shopping are mandatory to vindicate their interests, the Court deems it surpassingly likely that absent a pre-filing injunction, the refiling of any surviving claims will almost certainly be broadened to include challenges to the Navy’s selection board policies and procedures that have already been resolved by this Court—in the 2018 opinion and again today.... Consequently, the Court concludes that a narrowly tailored prospective filing restriction is necessary.
The Court will sever the surviving retaliation, constructive discharge, and interference with religious free speech claims. And it will permit plaintiffs to refile those ad hoc claims in this Court or any other appropriate district Court, in individual complaints (not joined with any other plaintiff). However, any plaintiff who wishes to refile his or her claims in any federal court must first seek leave from this Court within thirty days, that is, by not later than May 21, 2020.
Labels:
Chaplains,
Protestant,
US Navy
Tuesday, April 21, 2020
Status of Temporary Abortion Bans
Catholic News Agency reviews the status of legal challenges to temporary bans on abortion in COVID-19 orders in various states, saying in part:
Eight states that have enacted temporary bans on abortion during the coronavirus pandemic are contending with legal challenges, and judges have prevented many of the temporary bans from coming into effect.
Judges have so far intervened to allow abortions in some form in Alabama, Arkansas, Oklahoma, Ohio, Texas, Iowa, Louisiana, and Tennessee, after the leaders of those states attempted to classify elective abortions as non-essential procedures.
In Iowa, abortion advocates had filed a lawsuit against the state’s order, but reached an agreement with the state outside of court before the lawsuit could progress.
In Alaska, a move by state officials to “delay” abortions until June has not been legally challenged; and in Mississippi, the state’s order banning all “elective” medical procedures also has not been challenged. Louisiana’s order to stop elective abortions is facing a lawsuit but has not been blocked.
Many states have suspended medical procedures deemed non-emergency or non-essential in an attempt to stem the spread of the virus among healthcare professionals, and to free up medical resources and hospital capacity.
Supposed Church Enjoined From Selling Bleach As Sacrament To Cure COVID-19
On Friday, in United States v. Genesis II Church of Health and Healing, (SD FL, April 17, 2020), a Florida federal district court issued a temporary restraining order against an organization claiming to be a church which was selling a powerful industrial bleach product as a cure for COVID-19 and other serious conditions. As set out in the government's Complaint (full text) and its Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order (full text) filed April 16, the defendant told the FDA:
We can say cure, heal and treat as a Free Church. Don’t need you [sic] approval or authorization for a Church Sacrament.”... There will be NO corrective actions on our part … You have no authority over us! … Never going to happen.ARS Technia gives additional background:
Genesis was selling MMS online and describes it as a sacrament. Attempting to purchase the product today leads to an error page that says, "We are currently in prayer!!! During these difficult and trying times, we are in prayer and seeking The LORD's wisdom & guidance. Please pray for us."
Genesis' main website calls the organization "a non-religious church" that aims to "restore health" to the world and which "was formed for the purpose of serving mankind and not for the purpose of worship."
Labels:
COVID-19,
Fraud,
Free exercise
Church Property Is Held In Constructive Trust For Parent Episcopal Diocese
In Protestant Episcopal Church v. Church of the Messiah, 2020 Va. Cir. LEXIS 52 (VA Cir. Ct., Feb. 24, 2020), which just became available on Lexis, a Virginia state trial court held that church property belongs to the Diocese of the Protestant Episcopal Church and not to the break-away parish, Church of the Messiah that adopted a "charismatic" worship tradition. The court said in part
The Parish clearly breached its fiduciary obligation to the Diocese when its Rector and its Vestry disregarded their oath to conform to the Episcopal denomination and instead led the congregation in a vote to disassociate from the Diocese and the Episcopal Church.... In this case, the Parish stood in a fiduciary relation to the Diocese and the Episcopal Church and enjoyed title to the Property for the benefit of members of the Episcopal denomination. Over time, it appears that the members of the Parish lost sight of this relationship, instead envisioning themselves as having some personal ownership interest in the Property by virtue of their contributions to the extensive improvements and maintenance through the years. When the leaders chose to remain loyal to the congregation in its dilemma between the members' personal beliefs and the policies of the Episcopal church, the leadership was obligated to resign. Instead, they abused the authority derived from their position in the Episcopal Church by attempting to remove the Property from the Episcopal congregation for whose benefit it was held in trust and keep it for the use and benefit of another congregation entirely....
The new congregation for whose benefit the Property is currently held bears little resemblance to the mission formed by the charter members, who, when they became unsatisfied with their churches' religious practices, were willing to leave the security and comfort of their church buildings to worship in accordance with their beliefs. By attempting to "acquire an interest" in the Property on behalf of this new congregation, the leadership of the Parish breached their fiduciary duty, and, accordingly, the Court will impose a constructive trust.
Labels:
Church property,
Episcopal,
Virginia
Monday, April 20, 2020
Church's Challenge To Kentucky Ban on Mass Gatherings Is Rejected
In Maryville Baptist Church, Inc. v. Beshear, (WD KY, April 18, 2020), a Kentucky federal district court refused a request by a church and its pastor to issue a temporary restraining order against enforcing Governor Andy Beshear's ban on mass gatherings. The ban includes in-person religious services. The court said in part:
Plaintiffs seek to compare in-person attendance at church services with presence at a liquor store or “supercenter store[].” The latter, however, is a singular and transitory experience: individuals enter the store at various times to purchase various items; they move around the store individually—subject to strict social-distancing guidelines...—and they leave when they have achieved their purpose. Plaintiffs’ desired church service, in contrast, is by design a communal experience, one for which a large group of individuals come together at the same time in the same place for the same purpose....
Similarly unpersuasive is Plaintiffs’ contention that the orders violate their right to freely exercise their religion by discriminating against religious conduct. Again, the order temporarily prohibits “[a]ll mass gatherings,” not merely religious gatherings.... Religious expression is not singled out.Louisville Courier-Journal reports on the decision.
Labels:
COVID-19,
Free exercise,
Kentucky
Recent Articles of Interest
From SSRN:
- Joshua Cutler, A Hebrew Republic in the Gilded Age? Henry George’s Single Tax and the Hebrew Bible, (March 23, 2020).
- Abner S. Greene, Liberalism and the Distinctiveness of Religious Belief, (Forthcoming, 35 Constitutional Commentary (2020)).
- Carliss Chatman, If a Fetus is a Person, it Should Get Child Support, Due Process, and Citizenship, (Washington and Lee Law Review, Vol. 76, No. 1, 2020).
- Milo Colton, Texas Indian Holocaust and Survival: McAllen Grace Brethren Church v. Salazar, 21 Scholar 51-146 (2019).
Labels:
Articles of interest
Sunday, April 19, 2020
Kansas Churches Get TRO To Protect Against Enforcement Of Congregant Number Limits
In First Baptist Church v. Kelly, (D KS, April 18, 2020), a Kansas federal district court granted two churches a temporary restraining order against enforcement of a provision in Kansas Governor Laura Kelly's COVID-19 executive orders that ban religious assemblies of more than ten congregants. The TRO's however included specific safety precautions that the churches had accepted. In granting the TRO, the court said in part:
Plaintiffs have made a substantial showing that development of the current restriction on religious activities shows religious activities were specifically targeted for more onerous restrictions than comparable secular activities. The Governor previously designated the attendance of religious services as an “essential function” that was exempt from the general prohibition on mass gatherings. That designation has not been rescinded or modified, yet in EO 20-18 and EO 20-25 churches and religious activities appear to have been singled out among essential functions for stricter treatment. It appears to be the only essential function whose core purpose – association for the purpose of worship – had been basically eliminated. For example, the secular facilities that are still exempt from the mass gathering prohibition or that are given more lenient treatment, despite the apparent likelihood they will involve mass gatherings, include airports, childcare locations, hotels, food pantries and shelters, detoxification centers, retail establishments (subject to the distancing and “essential function” purpose noted above), retail food establishments, public transportation, job centers, office spaces used for essential functions, and the apparently broad category of “manufacturing, processing, distribution, and production facilities.”...ADF issued a press release announcing the grant of the TRO. (See prior related posting.)
Labels:
COVID-19,
Free exercise,
Kansas
Saturday, April 18, 2020
Court Upholds New Mexico 5-Person Limit On Size of Church Gatherings
In Legacy Church, Inc. v. Kunkel, (D NM, April 17, 2020), a New Mexico federal district court refused to enjoin enforcement of the Order issued by the New Mexico Department of Health that bars gatherings of more than five people in houses of worship. Legacy Church, a megachurch, requires approximately 30 clergy and technical staff members to live stream its religious services. Summarizing its 100-page opinion, the court said:
The primary issues are: (i) whether Plaintiff Legacy Church, Inc.... is likely to succeed on the merits in demonstrating that Defendant Kathyleen M. Kunkel’s Public Health Emergency Order (4-11-20-PHO)..., which restricts places of worship from gathering more than five people within a single room or connected space, violates Plaintiff Legacy Church’s rights under the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment....; and (ii) whether Legacy Church is likely to succeed on the merits in demonstrating that the Order violates [its]... rights to peaceably assemble under the First Amendment. The Court concludes that: (i) the Order does not violate Legacy Church’s First Amendment religious freedom rights, because the Order is neutral and generally applicable; and (ii) the Order is a reasonable time, place, and manner restriction, and so does not violate Legacy Church’s First Amendment rights to assemble.[Thanks to Marty Lederman via Religionlaw for the lead.]
Labels:
COVID-19,
Free exercise,
New Mexico
Friday, April 17, 2020
Churches Sue Challenging Kansas Stay-At-Home Order
Two churches filed suit in a Kansas federal district court yesterday challenging a provision in Gov. Laura Kelly's COVID-19 stay-at-home order (Executive Order 20-18) which bans religious services with more than ten congregants. The complaint (full text) in First Baptist Church v. Kelly, (D KS, filed 4/16/2020) contends that the order violates plaintiffs' 1st Amendment rights as well as their rights under the Kansas Preservation of Religious Freedom Act. ADF issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit. The complaint alleges in part:
While EO 20-18 carves out broad exemptions for 26 types of secular activities from this gathering ban, including, bars and restaurants, libraries, shopping malls, retail establishments, and office spaces the order singled out “churches and other religious services or activities” to expressly prohibit any type of gathering of more than ten non-performing individuals, regardless of whether social distancing, hygiene, and other efforts to slow the spread of COVID-19 were practiced.(See prior related posting.)
Labels:
COVID-19,
Free exercise,
Kansas
Litigation Delay Refused In Suit Over Christian School's Compliance With Nondiscrimination Requirements
In Bethel Ministries, Inc. v. Salmon, (D MD, April 15, 2020), a Maryland federal district court refused to stay discover in a suit by a Christian school challenging its disqualification from Maryland's scholarship program for non-public schools. Bethel Christian Academy was denied funds because of its failure to comply with non-discrimination requirements which include a ban on discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity. Maryland school officials had sought a stay because of the U.S. Supreme Court's grant of certiorari in Fulton v. City of Philadelphia. In refusing a stay, the district court said in part:
[T]he Supreme Court’s decision in Fulton might provide useful guidance for this Court’s resolution of Bethel’s claims. Even so, this Court is disinclined to stay proceedings because of a theoretical possibility....
By the nature of the claims presented in this case, a delay of more than a year would have a significant effect on Bethel’s enrollment, and its ability to budget for the academic year. Irrespective of the ultimate result of this matter, Bethel and Defendants would be better served by entering the 2020-2021 school year with this litigation moving closer to a definitive conclusion.
Labels:
LGBT rights,
Maryland,
School aid
Thursday, April 16, 2020
Justice Department Backs Church Objections To Discriminatory COVID-19 Bans
On Tuesday, the U.S. Attorney General William Barr issued a statement (full text) on Religious Practice and Social Distancing. He said in part:
In exigent circumstances, when the community as a whole faces an impending harm of this magnitude, and where the measures are tailored to meeting the imminent danger, the constitution does allow some temporary restriction on our liberties that would not be tolerated in normal circumstances.
But even in times of emergency, when reasonable and temporary restrictions are placed on rights, the First Amendment and federal statutory law prohibit discrimination against religious institutions and religious believers. Thus, government may not impose special restrictions on religious activity that do not also apply to similar nonreligious activity. For example, if a government allows movie theaters, restaurants, concert halls, and other comparable places of assembly to remain open and unrestricted, it may not order houses of worship to close, limit their congregation size, or otherwise impede religious gatherings. Religious institutions must not be singled out for special burdens.He also indicated that the Department of Justice had filed a Statement of Interest (full text) Temple Baptist Church v. City of Greenville, a Mississippi church's challenge to a ban on drive-in church services. (See prior posting.) Subsequently Greenville's mayor indicated that the city would allow drive-in services as long as families stay in their cars with the widows rolled up. (WREG News).
Labels:
COVID-19,
Free exercise,
Justice Department
Suit Challenges Chattanooga's Ban On Drive-In Church Services
Suit was filed on Thursday in a Tennessee federal district court challenging Chattanooga, Tennessee's COVID-19 ban on drive-in church services. The complaint (full text) in Metropolitan Tabernacle Church v. City of Chattanooga, (ED TN, filed 4/16/2020), alleges in part:
[A]ccording to the City, you can buy a hamburger and sit in your car at a drive-in restaurant, or sit in the parking lot of a retail establishment with hundreds of other vehicles with your windows rolled down, but you can’t sit in your car at a drive-in church service with your windows rolled up....
Plaintiffs sincerely believe that the Bible teaches the necessity of gathering together for corporate prayer and worship and that such assembly is necessary and good for the Church and its members’ spiritual growth....
The City’s drive-in church ban targets, discriminates against, and shows hostility towards churches, including Plaintiffs.ADF issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.
Labels:
COVID-19,
Free exercise,
Free speech,
Tennessee
Tuesday, April 14, 2020
Suit Challenges Enforcement of COVID-19 Orders Against Pro-Life Activists
Suit was filed today in a North Carolina federal district court seeking to enjoin city of Greensboro and Guilford County officials from applying COVID-19 orders to prevent anti-abortion activists from walking and praying in front of abortion clinics. The complaint (full text) in Global Impact Ministries, Inc. v. City of Greensboro, (MD NC, filed 4/14/2020) contends:
The County has passed, and the City is enforcing, regulations limiting the operations of certain businesses and activities, and imposing social distancing requirements in response to the recent pandemic, but those requirements have been applied in an inconsistent and unconstitutional manner with respect to peaceful conduct and charitable religious activities in Greensboro.
ADF issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.
Labels:
Abortion,
COVID-19,
North Carolina
Church Challenges To COVID-19 Orders Proliferate
Suits challenging COVID-19 orders that ban group church services are proliferating. Sacramento Bee reported yesterday:
WAVE News reported yesterday:
A group of Inland Empire pastors is suing California Gov. Gavin Newsom in federal court, alleging that his administration is “criminalizing the free exercise of religion” with stay-at-home directives that have prevented people from attending church services....
One of the plaintiffs is Dean Moffatt, a Riverside County pastor who was fined $1,000 for holding a Palm Sunday church service, according to the complaint filed.KRQE News reported yesterday:
An Albuquerque [New Mexico] megachurch is now suing the state claiming the governor violated the first amendment that protects the freedom of religion. Specifically, it’s focused on the church’s Easter Sunday service and the number of people it takes to live stream to its congregation....
[Pastor Steve] Smothermon of Legacy Church filed suit requesting a temporary restraining order but also a permanent injunction affording them the same restrictions as local essential retailers, limiting capacity to 20%. Smothermon says to hold yesterday’s service they would have a worship team, a band, the pastor and technical staff. A group of about 30 people. Therefore, conducting the live-streamed services would immediately violate the governor’s order to limit gatherings to no more than five people.
WAVE News reported yesterday:
A Kentucky church whose members defied Gov. Andy Beshear’s executive order not to gather in groups now plans to file a federal lawsuit claiming its constitutional rights were violated.
The Maryville Baptist Church is at the center of the debate, after about 50 members attended an Easter service in person.
Kentucky State Police troopers were ordered to take down the license plates of those who attended, threatening to quarantine them.
The church’s attorney, Matthew Staver, said the lawsuit is because the church was targeted.
Labels:
California,
COVID-19,
Free exercise,
Kentucky,
New Mexico
Monday, April 13, 2020
Suit Challenges City's Ban On Drive-In Church Services
On Friday, a church in Greenville, Mississippi filed suit in federal district court challenging the city's COVID-19 closure order insofar as it bans drive-in church services held on church property where the service is broadcast over low-power FM radio to individuals sitting in their cars. The complaint (full text) in Temple Baptist Church v. City of Greenville, (ND MS, filed 4/10/2020) contends that the order violates plaintiffs' rights of free exercise, free speech and freedom of assembly, their due process rights, and conflicts with the Mississippi governor's statewide order. ADF issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.
Labels:
COVID-19,
Free exercise,
Free speech,
Mississippi
Recent Articles of Interest
From SSRN:
- Nicholas Aroney & Patrick Parkinson, Associational Freedom, Anti-Discrimination Law and the New Multiculturalism, ((2019) 44 Australasian Journal of Legal Philosophy 1).
- M. Mohsin Alam Bhat, Equality in Secularism: Contemporary Debates on Social Stratification and the Indian Constitution, (Neo, Jaclyn L., Arif A. Jamal, and Daniel PS Goh, eds. Regulating Religion in Asia: Norms, Modes, and Challenges. Cambridge University Press, 2019).
- Smarika Kumar & Michael Riegner, Freedom of Expression in Diverse Democracies: Comparing Hate Speech Law in India and the EU, (in: Philipp Dann/Arun Thiruvengadam (eds), Democratic Constitutionalism in Continental Polities: EU and India compared, 2020, Cheltenham: Elgar, Forthcoming).
- Seana Shiffrin, Compelled Speech and the Irrelevance of Controversy, (47 Pepperdine Law Review 731 (2020)).
- Melanie Kalmanson & Riley Fredrick, The Viability of Change: Finding Abortion in Equality After Obergefell, (23 New York University Journal of Legislation and Public Policy, 2020).
- Hee Yul Lee, Hyun-Ju Hwang & Dong-Hwan Kim, Issues of Halal Supply Chain Management: Suggestion for Korean Traders, (Journal of Korea Trade Vol. 23, No. 8, December 2019, 132-144).
- M. Mohsin Alam Bhat, Court as a Symbolic Resource: Indra Sawhney Case and the Dalit Muslim Mobilization, (Rosenberg, Gerald N., Sudhir Krishnaswamy, and Shishir Bail, eds. A Qualified Hope. Cambridge University Press, 2019).
- Symposium: Pagans and Christians in the City: Culture Wars from the Tiber to the Potomac by Steven D. Smith. Introduction by students Victoria Harris, John Komondorea; articles by Perry Dane, Abner S. Greene, Bruce P. Frohnen, Anna Su, Brian Dunkle, Helen M. Alvare, Michael P. Moreland. 57 Journal of Catholic Legal Studies 1-66 (2018).
- Education Law and Policy at the Margins: Critical Analyses of the Intersection of Race, Religion, Gender & Class in Education. Articles by Timberly L. Baker, Steven L. Nelson, Antron D. Mahoney, Heather Brydie Harris, Kenzo K. Sung, Ayana Allen-Handy, Chelsea E. Connery, Preston C. Green III, James C. Kaufman, David Hoa Khoa Nguyen, Josue Lopez, Ann M. Aviles, David O. Stovall. 19 University of Maryland Law Journal of Race, Religion, Gender & Class 1-184 (2019).
Sunday, April 12, 2020
Kansas Supreme Court Says Legislative Attempt To Revoke Governor's COVID-19 Order Was Invalid
In Kelly v. Legislative Coordinating Council, (KA Sup. Ct., April 11, 2020), the Kansas Supreme Court upheld the effectiveness of Kansas Governor Laura Kelly's executive order (full text) which, among numerous other things, bars gatherings of more than ten people in churches and other houses of worship. (The order does allow more than ten individuals if they are conducting or performing the religious service, so long as they follow safety protocols including six-foot distancing.) The court held that attempts by the Legislative Coordinating Council to revoke the governor's executive order were invalid. The court said that its decision does not rule on "whether Executive Order 20-18 was a legally valid or constitutional exercise of the Governor's authority, despite its limitation on religious gatherings." NPR reports on the decision.
Labels:
COVID-19,
Free exercise,
Kansas
President Trump Sends Easter Greetings
The White House this morning posted President Trump's Presidential Message on Easter, 2020. It reads in part:
Melania and I join millions of Christians celebrating the resurrection of Jesus Christ and the gift of eternal life this Easter. Although this year’s observance of Easter comes during a somber time for our Nation, we hope all of you are filled with the joy, love, and hope that marks this holiest of days.
As our Nation has faced the unique challenges posed by the coronavirus during the past few weeks, we have turned to God for guidance, comfort, and hope. Throughout this difficult period, we have witnessed the core tenets of Christianity—love, compassion, and kindness—reflected in the many acts of courage, generosity, and caring of the American people. Our country’s citizens have taken to heart the words of 1 Peter 4:10: “Each one should use whatever gift he has received to serve others, faithfully administering God’s grace in its various forms.”
Labels:
Donald Trump,
Easter
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)